Reminder - input on mind map and questions coming out of ICANN64 meeting
Dear EPDP Team, As a reminder, please share any input you may have on the phase 2 mind map (see attached) by Thursday 28 March. In addition, your input is requested on the following questions: * How should the team prioritize going forward? * What next steps should be taken in relations to the dependencies identified? * What should be the next steps in relation to the legal guidance to date? * What is the target date for publication of the Initial Report that the EPDP Team is aiming to work toward? Please share any feedback you may have with the mailing list. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gns...>.
Hi all, As a partial answer to the questions below, I believe that we should start by Analyzing the legal responses that we received so far, Determining which items in the mind map are affected by the legal advices received Reaching conclusions with regard to these items Best Hadia From: Gnso-epdp-team [mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 9:50 PM To: gnso-epdp-team@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] Reminder - input on mind map and questions coming out of ICANN64 meeting Dear EPDP Team, As a reminder, please share any input you may have on the phase 2 mind map (see attached) by Thursday 28 March. In addition, your input is requested on the following questions: · How should the team prioritize going forward? · What next steps should be taken in relations to the dependencies identified? · What should be the next steps in relation to the legal guidance to date? · What is the target date for publication of the Initial Report that the EPDP Team is aiming to work toward? Please share any feedback you may have with the mailing list. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gns...>.
All, Please find below the ISPCP’s input: Please see the request fo input below. It would be great if you could share your views and requests at your earliest convenience.
How should the team prioritize going forward?
The work in phase 2 can be put into three categories: 1. Development of a Universal Disclosure Model in response to requests pertaining to civil claims. 2. Disclosure of data pertaining to law enforcement requests. 3. Questions pushed to phase 2 from phase 1. According to these categories, we can create three work tracks numbered as above. Given the public debate, there seems to be a lot of interest in topic 1, which is why I would suggest to schedule meetings in the following sequence: work track 1, work track 2, work track 1, work track 3. That would give work track 2 emphasis.
What next steps should be taken in relations to the dependencies identified?
The negotiation and finalization of the data protection agreements required according to our phase 1 report are a prerequisite for much of our work in phase 2. ICANN and the contracted parties should start working on those asap and - whilst not making the contents of their discussions public, share information on an envisaged delivery date and progress.
What should be the next steps in relation to the legal guidance to date?
Legal memos received to date should be discussed by the EPDP Team. Legal guidance should be sought on the possibility of an accreditation-based disclosure system as such. Further, the question of disclosure to non-EU law enforcement based on Art 6 I f GDPR should be presented to legal counsel.
What is the target date for publication of the Initial Report that the EPDP Team is aiming to work toward?
18 months form the first meeting would be an ambitious goal, but could be a target. Best, Thomas
Am 19.03.2019 um 20:49 schrieb Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>:
Dear EPDP Team,
As a reminder, please share any input you may have on the phase 2 mind map (see attached) by Thursday 28 March. In addition, your input is requested on the following questions:
How should the team prioritize going forward? What next steps should be taken in relations to the dependencies identified? What should be the next steps in relation to the legal guidance to date? What is the target date for publication of the Initial Report that the EPDP Team is aiming to work toward?
Please share any feedback you may have with the mailing list.
Best regards,
Caitlin, Berry and Marika
Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings@icann.org <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>
Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gns...>.
<EPDP Team Phase 2 - upd 10 March 2019.pdf>_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team>
All, This is a little bit of a repeat of what I said in Kobe, but I think the mind map does a good job laying what we need to cover in phase 2. I like how it covers the items from the charter as well as those items deferred from phase 1. I see one of our first tasks in phase 2 as agreeing to scope and I think the mind map is helpful in establishing items that should be in scope. The mind map also covers areas where we expect or are looking for additional input. In some cases we have received that in the form of legal advice, but need to decide how to act on that legal advice. In other areas we’ve asked for ICANN to undertake a review (recommendation #15) to help inform data retention requirements. In cases like this I think we need to be specific about what we are asking for and what we expect to do once we have that input. The mind map includes recommendation #14 which covers Privacy/Proxy. Here we’ve discussed getting feedback from the PPSAI IRT which is good, but this is an area we might want to expand our call for input. The main focus of phase 2 will be on policy for access to non-public registration data. This is something Privacy/Proxy providers have been dealing with for many years. It might be useful if we looked here for input on what works and doesn’t work as an early input for our phase 2 work. * How should the team prioritize going forward? I’d like to see us start by agreeing on what is in scope and what the deliverables are for phase 2. I’m not sure we were always on the same page for those items during phase 1 and so being clear on that up front should be our first step. More specifically on how the team should prioritize, once we agree on the scope we can lay out a work plan for addressing all the items in scope starting with items that are prerequisite for others. We should try and prioritize where we are asking for input from outside the working group as it may take time and they are often intended to inform working group deliberations. * What next steps should be taken in relations to the dependencies identified? I understand that dependencies here refers to the items in the mind map where we are asking for input from outside the working group (such as ICANN org on retention or the PPSAI on Privacy/Proxy). As noted above, these items should be prioritized as they are intended to inform working group deliberations. The working group should do some up front work to clarify what input we are looking for and what we expect to do with that input once we have it. We should work with the respective groups to make sure our requests are clear and reasonable for them to respond to. * What should be the next steps in relation to the legal guidance to date? I would like to see the legal sub-team take a first pass at discussing the guidance. I think the group A/B approach to public comments from phase 1 provides a good template where a sub team did initial triage and when consensus was reached it was provided as recommendations to the plenary and where it was not, the issue was left to the full working group to deliberate on. A similar approach leveraging the legal sub team could work here as well. * What is the target date for publication of the Initial Report that the EPDP Team is aiming to work toward? I don’t think we should set a target date and work backwards from that, rather we should identify the scope and develop a work plan that establishes a timeline based on that scope. I think in Kobe I heard pretty strong agreement that the work of phase 2 is important and should move forward as quickly as is practical, but that we don’t want to have the same frantic deadline imposed timeline we had in phase 1. Best, Marc From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 3:50 PM To: gnso-epdp-team@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-epdp-team] Reminder - input on mind map and questions coming out of ICANN64 meeting Dear EPDP Team, As a reminder, please share any input you may have on the phase 2 mind map (see attached) by Thursday 28 March. In addition, your input is requested on the following questions: * How should the team prioritize going forward? * What next steps should be taken in relations to the dependencies identified? * What should be the next steps in relation to the legal guidance to date? * What is the target date for publication of the Initial Report that the EPDP Team is aiming to work toward? Please share any feedback you may have with the mailing list. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gns...>.
Thanks Marika, Here are the IPCs thoughts on your questions and how to best proceed with the Phase 2 work. Method We believe the Phase 2 work should occur in two separate and concurrent work streams. - Work Stream 1 will focus on issues and questions related to the system for standardized access to non-public registration data, as defined in the EPDP charter and the overlapping EPDP Team Recommendation #3. - Work Stream 2 will focus on completing Phase 1 issues. We also believe that the "legal small team" should continue to meet concurrent with the two work streams described above, with the focus of drafting questions to our legal resource specific to our phase 2 work and analyzing responses received (both existing and TBD). Additional thoughts - Each work stream should set and work forward on its own schedule and work plan. In fact we suggest that a separate report should be generated for each work stream. - Each work stream should schedule its own separate weekly 90min meeting. Access to these meetings is open to all EPDP members (and alternates per the charter). - In a lesson learned from phase 1, consensus calls should happen early and often. Prioritization Legal Small Group Priorities - We suggest the first priority for this team is to answer the controllership and legal basis question for a system for Standardized for Standardized Access to Non-Public Registration Data, assuming a technical framework consistent with the TSG, and in a way that sufficiently addresses issues related to liability and risk mitigation with the goal of decreasing liability risks to Contracted Parties through the adoption of a system for Standardized Access. Work Stream One Priorities - Answer the gating question in Rec #3 - "Whether such a system should be adopted" - Identify the various legitimate purposes for third parties to access registration data - Move on to answering the charter questions on Access (a), (b) and (c) in the order listed. (We note that several of these questions have been answered in Phase 1 and also by the TSG work.) Work Stream Two Priorities - Issues related to Legal vs Natural distinction as identified in Rec #17 - Potential additional purposes to facilitate ICANN's Office of the Chief Technology Officer as identified in Rec #2 - Retention period issues and data collection as identified in Rec #15 - The rest. We note that several issues in this work stream are dependent on legal advice (see below). Dependencies Any large project with parallel work streams is subject to dependencies, however we believe it is important that the EPDP team avoid serializing its work and steer clear of (while still recognizing) potential deadlocks in the process. Specifically, we appreciate the important legal issues related to controllership, risk and liability and agree that these questions must be addressed in a way that results in a win-win situation whereby risks are diminished for contracted parties and authenticated/accredited users have reliable access to requests for non-public registration data. As above, we believe that this important discussion happen in parallel with the work outlined in the work streams. ___________ *Alex Deacon* Cole Valley Consulting alex@colevalleyconsulting.com +1.415.488.6009 On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 12:50 PM Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
Dear EPDP Team,
As a reminder, please share any input you may have on the phase 2 mind map (see attached) *by Thursday 28 March*. In addition, your input is requested on the following questions:
- How should the team prioritize going forward? - What next steps should be taken in relations to the dependencies identified? - What should be the next steps in relation to the legal guidance to date? - What is the target date for publication of the Initial Report that the EPDP Team is aiming to work toward?
Please share any feedback you may have with the mailing list.
Best regards,
Caitlin, Berry and Marika
*Marika Konings*
*Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) *
*Email: marika.konings@icann.org <marika.konings@icann.org> *
*Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO*
*Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gns...>. *
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
Hi All- Thanks Alex for this— the BC supports this approach. All the best, Margie From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alex Deacon <alex@colevalleyconsulting.com> Date: Thursday, March 28, 2019 at 10:41 PM To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-epdp-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Reminder - input on mind map and questions coming out of ICANN64 meeting Thanks Marika, Here are the IPCs thoughts on your questions and how to best proceed with the Phase 2 work. Method We believe the Phase 2 work should occur in two separate and concurrent work streams. · Work Stream 1 will focus on issues and questions related to the system for standardized access to non-public registration data, as defined in the EPDP charter and the overlapping EPDP Team Recommendation #3. · Work Stream 2 will focus on completing Phase 1 issues. We also believe that the "legal small team" should continue to meet concurrent with the two work streams described above, with the focus of drafting questions to our legal resource specific to our phase 2 work and analyzing responses received (both existing and TBD). Additional thoughts · Each work stream should set and work forward on its own schedule and work plan. In fact we suggest that a separate report should be generated for each work stream. · Each work stream should schedule its own separate weekly 90min meeting. Access to these meetings is open to all EPDP members (and alternates per the charter). · In a lesson learned from phase 1, consensus calls should happen early and often. Prioritization Legal Small Group Priorities · We suggest the first priority for this team is to answer the controllership and legal basis question for a system for Standardized for Standardized Access to Non-Public Registration Data, assuming a technical framework consistent with the TSG, and in a way that sufficiently addresses issues related to liability and risk mitigation with the goal of decreasing liability risks to Contracted Parties through the adoption of a system for Standardized Access. Work Stream One Priorities · Answer the gating question in Rec #3 - "Whether such a system should be adopted" · Identify the various legitimate purposes for third parties to access registration data · Move on to answering the charter questions on Access (a), (b) and (c) in the order listed. (We note that several of these questions have been answered in Phase 1 and also by the TSG work.) Work Stream Two Priorities · Issues related to Legal vs Natural distinction as identified in Rec #17 · Potential additional purposes to facilitate ICANN's Office of the Chief Technology Officer as identified in Rec #2 · Retention period issues and data collection as identified in Rec #15 · The rest. We note that several issues in this work stream are dependent on legal advice (see below). Dependencies Any large project with parallel work streams is subject to dependencies, however we believe it is important that the EPDP team avoid serializing its work and steer clear of (while still recognizing) potential deadlocks in the process. Specifically, we appreciate the important legal issues related to controllership, risk and liability and agree that these questions must be addressed in a way that results in a win-win situation whereby risks are diminished for contracted parties and authenticated/accredited users have reliable access to requests for non-public registration data. As above, we believe that this important discussion happen in parallel with the work outlined in the work streams. ___________ Alex Deacon Cole Valley Consulting alex@colevalleyconsulting.com<mailto:alex@colevalleyconsulting.com> +1.415.488.6009 On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 12:50 PM Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: Dear EPDP Team, As a reminder, please share any input you may have on the phase 2 mind map (see attached) by Thursday 28 March. In addition, your input is requested on the following questions: * How should the team prioritize going forward? * What next steps should be taken in relations to the dependencies identified? * What should be the next steps in relation to the legal guidance to date? * What is the target date for publication of the Initial Report that the EPDP Team is aiming to work toward? Please share any feedback you may have with the mailing list. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gns...>. _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Depdp-2Dteam&d=DwMFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=_4XWSt8rUHZPiRG6CoP4Fnk_CCk4p550lffeMi3E1z8&m=0mp8sLEYiKWL94l48MkQCN36Tk5k1Inj6chxCtEvO90&s=V7CIW_K5L_WARfLRy3WMmMOXTREPNn0T9lf-5UI6qVo&e=>
participants (6)
-
Alex Deacon -
Anderson, Marc -
Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi -
Margie Milam -
Marika Konings -
Thomas Rickert